Armistice Day has greater resonance than ever

Yesterday's Armistice Day was one of the most important in recent years.

At a time when British soldiers appear to be making little progress in Afghanistan and yet continue to lose their lives on a regular basis, yesterday served as a day of reflection for many.

The First World War was of course on a completely different scale to the wars we see today, and the loss of life was horrendous in comparison; but at the time this was justified by saying that it was 'the war to end all wars'.

War breeds war

The reality was of course that 'the Great War' did not end all wars, and it was only twenty one years later that the second world war began. If anything the First World War only served to create more favourable conditions for more wars.

War is never an ideal solution and rarely does it achieve an ideal result. The reality of war is that many people will die, both civilian and military in the pursuit of victory and there is little that can be done to prevent this.

The crucial point though, is whether or not the sacrifices made during wars are justified. If your relative has died for a good cause it will of course be devastating, but at the same time one may feel a sense of pride in what they stood for.

If however your relative dies in a futile war, then their death could be seen as a waste. This is the dilemma that politicians and soldiers' relatives have to mull over on a daily basis.

Dilemma

Is the war in Afghanistan worth losing British soldiers for? The Prime Minister maintains that we are fighting in Afghanistan to maintain Britain's security from terrorist attacks, and that if we were not there we would be under serious threat.

This may well be true and not many people are able to look at the intelligence reports to be able to agree or disagree with this statement. Public opinion though appears to be turning away from supporting the war and this is dangerous for Gordon Brown.

The recent public row with the mother of dead service-man Jamie Janes did not help Mr. Brown's cause and while the criticism of the Prime Minister in this instance was mostly unjustified; it shows how impatient people are becoming with the war.

The Prime Minister should have taken more time to draft his letter to Mrs. Janes but portaying him as insensitive for making spelling mistakes was a bit of a cheap shot from The Sun.

Brown said on Monday "I have at all times acted in good faith seeking to do the right thing. I do not think anyone will believe that I write letters with any intent to cause offence."

Need for debate

This argument though clouds the real issue of whether or not is time to start bringing home the troops and unless things start to improve quickly expect to see the issue debated more frequently in parliament.

There is a danger however; that if this does happen it could be seen as showing a loss of support for our soldiers but this is no reason not to have the debate.

The mission objective in Afghanistan has become muddled and by not having a proper debate on what we are trying to achieve there, could mean that lives will be lost when they need not have been.

Yesterday's Armistice Day service at Westminster Abbey included the words of Wilfred Owen the First World War poet, and much of his poetry still resonates today.

For instance 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria more'. These words have been repeated over and over, but today they have lost none of their meaning and perhaps for some, none of their cynicism.

The situation in Afghanistan does not appear to be improving and on a day when the US ambassador in Kabul has allegedly advised the US President not to commit thousands more troops to the war-zone, the future of the conflict looks uncertain.

It may be difficult to redefine the mission but for the brave troops, their families and the public mood, it is essential that this happens soon.

Sacking the Government's Chief Drug Adviser Stinks

On Friday Professor David Nutt was sacked from his post as top drug adviser to the British government.

Earlier that week Nutt had criticised the government's decison to upgrade Cannabis from class C to B. He also said ministers had devalued and distorted evidence and said drugs classification was being politicised.

The response of the the Home Secretary Alan Johnson, was to sack Professor Nutt, saying he had "lost confidence" in his advice.

Science devalued

Nutt responded by describing his sacking as a "serious challenge to the value of science in relation to the government".

This is really the serious issue here. If a scientist is asked to look at an issue as important as drug use then wouldn't we want him to be open and honest about his views?

This was clearly not the view taken by ministers and in their view Nutt's views clashed too much with their policies on the subject.

Professor Nutt said of the government: "We can help them. We can give them very good advice, and it would be much more simpler if they took that advice rather than getting tangled up in other sorts of messages which frankly really do confuse the public."

He was referring to the upgrading of Cannabis to class B, a move that to many people seems fairly pointless. Indeed, according to the scientific evidence presented by Nutt, smoking cannabis creates only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.

Alcohol and Cigarettes

He also said that separating alcohol and cigarettes from other drugs such as LSD, Ecstasy and Cannabis was "artificial". A fair point considering the amount of damage that alcohol and cigarettes are well-known to cause.

Of course one could also argue that to work as an effective adviser, coming out in public with views clearly opposed to the government's own, is a counter-productive exercise.

By openly criticising policy, Nutt was always walking a tight-rope in terms of keeping his job. However, should this really have been the case?

If ministers are only surrounded by 'yes men' then creating real, sensible change in policy and attitudes will never come about.

Impartial voice

Presumably Nutt was appointed to give an impartial view about drug use, so why then when he decides to offer it is he removed from his post?

It is true that ministers do not have to act on advice, but in a democratic society respected figures such as Professor Nutt should be able to speak freely without being censored.

Perhaps speaking publicly was the last resort for Nutt, and he felt he had no other option other than to make his views public. At least now by doing this we are able to have a sensible debate about drug use.

Drugs destroy people's lives. If Alan Johnson and his predecessor Jacqui Smith are experts on the subject then fine but if not, then effective and outspoken advisers are desperately needed.

The decision to sack Professor Nutt from his post is yet another disappointing move from this ailing government. Let's hope his dismissal does not signal the end of the debate.